Post navigation

#Thinkwing: Mon,12/5/2016, 9PM @KPFTHouston 90.1FM. TOPICS: Time For The Federal Govt To Step In on election integrity?, National Election Confidence, Recounts And Jill Stein, Support Progressive Causes, Trump Lies About Popular Vote, Claims 3mill Illegals Voted For Clinton, Decries Recounts As “Shams”, Do We Need More Truth In Journalism And Less False Equivalence?, Airport Circulation, more. Open Forum! [AUDIO][VIDEO]

Please take a moment to choose THINKWING RADIO from the drop-down list when you donate.

POSSIBLE TOPICS:Time For The Federal Govt To Step In on election integrity?, National Election Confidence, Recounts And Jill Stein, Support Progressive Causes, Trump Lies About Popular Vote, Claims 3mill Illegals Voted For Clinton, Decries Recounts As “Shams”, Do We Need More Truth In Journalism And Less False Equivalence? Airport Circulation, more

Welcome to Thinkwing Radio with Mike Honig (@ThinkwingRadio), a listener call-in show airing live every Monday night from 9-10 PM (CT) on KPFT-FM 90.1 (Houston). My engineer is Bob Gartner.

Listen live on the radioor on the internet from anywhere in the world! When the show is live, we take calls at 713-526-5738. (Long distance charges may apply.)

The Latest: Michigan Republicans appealing recount order, WAFF-TV,‎ Monday, December 5th 2016: The Michigan Republican Party is appealing a judge’s order that forced an immediate recount in the presidential race. Lawyers for the GOP filed a brief notice Monday, hours after a federal judge in Detroit told state officials to get the recount moving to meet a Dec. 13 deadline. Two counties started by early afternoon and more will follow.

Amanpour: “I was chilled when [Trump’s] first tweet after the election was about professional protesters incited by the media.” [Because as we all know] “First the media is accused of inciting, then sympathizing, then associating. And then suddenly they find themselves accused of being full-fledged terrorists and subversives. And then they end up in handcuffs, in cages, in kangaroo courts, in prisons, and then who knows what.

“…[It’s time to] recommit to robust, fact-based reporting, without fear or without favor, on the issues. Don’t stand for being labeled or called ‘lying,’ or ‘crooked,’ or ‘failing.'”

“Much of the media was tying itself in knots trying to differentiate between balance, between objectivity, neutrality, and crucially, the truth. We cannot continue the old paradigm. We cannot, for instance, keep saying, like it was over global warming. When 99% of the science, the empirical facts, the evidence, is given equal play with the tiny minority of deniers.”

“I learned a long, long time ago…never to equate victim and aggressor. Never to create a false moral or factual equivalence…So I believe in being truthful, not neutral. And I believe we must stop banalizing the truth. We have to be prepared to fight especially hard right now for the truth.”

“[Donald Trump] did a very savvy end run around us and used it to go straight to the people. Combined with the most incredible development ever, which is the tsunami of fake news, aka lies.”

“I feel that we face an existential crisis, a threat to the very relevance and usefulness of our profession. Now, more than ever, we need to recommit to real reporting across a real nation, a real world in which journalism and democracy are in mortal peril. Including by foreign powers like Russia who pay to churn out and place these false news articles, these lies, in many of our press. They hack into democratic systems.”

“I was shocked because very few ever imagined that so many Americans conducting their sacred duty in the secret ballot box, using their ballots, would be angry enough to ignore the wholesale denigration of these values. The vulgarity of language, the sexual predatory behavior, the deep misogyny, the bigoted and insulting views

“…the president-elect is also, unwittingly and amazingly, calling into question the results of an election that he won nearly three weeks ago. The logical extension of his argument is that all results should not be trusted. In effect, Trump is lending credence to the very same recount effort that he criticized as superfluous.

President-elect Donald Trump and the Republican-controlled Congress are drawing up plans to take on the government bureaucracy they have long railed against, by eroding job protections and grinding down benefits that federal workers have received for a generation.

Hiring freezes, an end to automatic raises, a green light to fire poor performers, a ban on union business on the government’s dime and less generous pensions — these are the contours of the blueprint emerging under Republican control of Washington in January.

Breitbart headlines also provide a possible insight into [Stephen K. Bannon’s] views, with federal employees described as overpaid, too numerous and a “privileged class.”

“Number of Government Employees Now Surpasses Manufacturing Jobs by 9,977,000,” the website proclaimed in November. There are 2.1 million federal civilian employees.

“It’s nearly impossible to fire somebody,” said Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah), chairman of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. “When the overwhelming majority do a good job and the one bad apple is there viewing pornography, I want people to be held accountable.”

Gingrich said the Trump administration probably would look for guidance from Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker (R), who stripped public employee unions of most of their collective-bargaining rights and forced workers to pay more into their pensions and for health care in what became a bitter political fight.

The figure was announced at Friday’s annual meeting of the Federal Salary Council, a group of union representatives and outside experts on compensation that oversees the General Schedule, the pay system for white-collar workers below the senior ranks.

Where there’s still room for hope:

Electoral College:

When do they meet? Dec 19, 2016

What is their Constitutional role?

Are they expected to vote in the interests of the country?

In the Federalist Paper #10, there is this:

… in the Federalist No. 10, James Madison argued against “an interested and overbearing majority” and the “mischiefs of faction” in an electoral system. He defined a faction as “a number of citizens whether amounting to a majority or minority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adverse to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community.“

I could interpret that as being a definite act of overt voter suppression across large parts if the United States by a “faction” “…adverse to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community.”

I think it’s time for the Electoral College to step up. That IS what the Electoral College is for.

Since no candidate received a majority of the electoral votes, the presidential election was thrown into a contingent election in the S. House of Representatives. Following the provisions of the Twelfth Amendment, only the top three candidates in the electoral vote were admitted as candidates in the House: Andrew Jackson, John Quincy Adams, and William Harris Crawford. … Adams was elected President on February 9, 1825, on the first ballot,with 13 states, followed by Jackson with 7, and Crawford with 4.

Adams’ victory shocked Jackson, who, as the winner of a plurality of both the popular and electoral votes, expected to be elected president.

United States presidential election, 1876 (From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia): It was one of the most contentious and controversial presidential elections in American history.

The results of the election remain among the most disputed ever, although it isn’t disputed that Samuel J. Tilden of New York outpolled Ohio’s Rutherford B. Hayes in the popular vote. After a first count of votes, Tilden won 184 electoral votes to Hayes’s 165, with 20 votes unresolved. These 20 electoral votes were in dispute in four states. … The question of who should have been awarded these electoral votes is the source of the continued controversy concerning the results of this election.

An informal deal was struck to resolve the dispute: the Compromise of 1877, which awarded all 20 electoral votes to Hayes. In return for the Democrats’ acquiescence to Hayes’s election, the Republicans agreed to withdraw federal troops from the South to end the Reconstruction Era of the United States. The Compromise effectively ceded power in the Southern states to the Democratic Redeemers, who went on to pursue their agenda of returning the South to a political economy resembling that of its pre-war condition, including the disenfranchisement of black voters.

This was the first presidential election since 1852 in which the Democratic candidate won a majority of the popular vote. This is also the only election in which a candidate for president received more than 50 percent of the popular vote, but was not elected president by the Electoral College, and one of five elections (in addition to 1824, 1888, 2000 and 2016) in which the person who won the most popular votes did not win the election. To date, it remains the election that recorded the smallest electoral vote victory and the election that yielded the highest voter turnout of the eligible voting age population in American history, at 81.8%.

Terms of compromise:

The compromise essentially stated that Southern Democrats would acknowledge Hayes as president, but only on the understanding that Republicans would meet certain demands. The following elements are generally said to be the points of the compromise:[3]

The removal of all[citation needed]S. military forces from the former Confederate states. At the time, U.S. troops remained in only Louisiana, South Carolina, and Florida, but the Compromise completed their withdrawal from the region.

The appointment of at least one Southern Democrat to Hayes’ cabinet. (David M. Key of Tennessee was appointed as Postmaster General.)

Legislation to help industrialize the South and restore its economy following Reconstruction and the Civil War.

In exchange, Democrats would accept the Republican Hayes as president by not employing the filibuster during the joint session of Congress needed to confirm the election.[4][5]

After the Compromise, a few Democrats complained loudly that Tilden had been cheated. There was talk of forming armed units that would march on Washington, but President Grant was ready for that. He beefed up military security, and no one marched on Washington.[6]

Hayes was peacefully inaugurated. Points 1 and 2 of the compromise took effect. Hayes had already announced his support for the restoration of “home rule,” which would involve federal troop removal, before the election. It was not unusual, nor unexpected, for a president, especially one so narrowly elected, to select a cabinet member favored by the other party. Points 3 and 4 were never enacted; it is possible there was no firm agreement about them.

Whether by informal deal or simply reassurances already in line with Hayes’s announced plans, talks with Southern Democrats satisfied the worries of many. This prevented a Congressional filibuster that had threatened to extend resolution of the election dispute beyond Inauguration Day 1877.[7]

“Although no elector is required by federal law to honor a pledge, there have been very few occasions when an elector voted contrary to a pledge.[8][9] The Twelfth Amendment, in specifying how a president and vice president are elected, requires each elector to cast one vote for president and another vote for vice president.[10][11]”

Additionally, in the Federalist No. 10, James Madison argued against “an interested and overbearing majority” and the “mischiefs of faction” in an electoral system. He defined a faction as “a number of citizens whether amounting to a majority or minority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adverse to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community.” What was then called republican government (i.e., federalism, as opposed to direct democracy), with its varied distribution of voter rights and powers, would countervail against factions. Madison further postulated in the Federalist No. 10 that the greater the population and expanse of the Republic, the more difficulty factions would face in organizing due to such issues as sectionalism.[25]

10 addresses the question of how to guard against “factions“, or groups of citizens, with interests contrary to the rights of others or the interests of the whole community. Madison saw factions as inevitable due to the nature of man – that is, as long as men hold differing opinions, have differing amounts of wealth, and own differing amount of property, they will continue to form alliances with people who are most similar to them, and they will sometimes work against the public interest, and infringe upon the rights of others. Thus, he questions how to guard against those dangers.[citation needed]

Federalist No. 10 continues a theme begun in Federalist No. 9; it is titled, “The Same Subject Continued: The Utility of the Union as a Safeguard Against Domestic Faction and Insurrection”. The whole series is cited by scholars and jurists as an authoritative interpretation and explication of the meaning of the Constitution. Jurists have frequently read No. 10 to mean that the Founding Fathers did not intend the United States government to be partisan[citation needed] and others have argued that given Madison’s clear understanding that partisanship is inevitable, he suggests that a representative republic form of government is more effective against factions than a direct democracy.[citation needed] Thus, Madison saw the Constitution as forming a “happy combination” of a republic and a democracy and with “the great and aggregate interests being referred to the national, the local and particular to the State legislatures” the power would not be centralized in a way that would make it “more difficult for unworthy candidates to practice the vicious arts by which elections are too often carried.”

The Anti-Federalists vigorously contested the notion that a republic of diverse interests could survive. The author Cato (another pseudonym, most likely that of George Clinton)[26] summarized the Anti-Federalist position in the article Cato no. 3:

It is natural to a republic to have only a small territory, otherwise it cannot long subsist. In a large republic there are men of large fortunes, and consequently of less moderation; there are trusts too great to be placed in any single subject; he has interest of his own; he soon begins to think that he may be happy, great and glorious, by oppressing his fellow citizens; and that he may raise himself to grandeur on the ruins of his country. In a large republic, the public good is sacrificed to a thousand views; it is subordinate to exceptions, and depends on accidents. In a small one, the interest of the public is easier perceived, better understood, and more within the reach of every citizen; abuses are of less extent, and of course are less protected.[32]

Greece and Rome were looked to as model republics throughout this debate,[33] and authors on both sides took Roman pseudonyms. Brutus points out that the Greek and Roman states were small, whereas the U.S. is vast. He also points out that the expansion of these republics resulted in a transition from free government to tyranny.[34]

The Electors shall meet in their respective states, and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves; they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President, and in distinct ballots the person voted for as Vice-President, and they shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as President, and all persons voted for as Vice-President and of the number of votes for each, which lists they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate.

The President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted.

The person having the greatest Number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed; and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President. But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote; a quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two-thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice. And if the House of Representatives shall not choose a President whenever the right of choice shall devolve upon them, before the fourth day of March next following, then the Vice-President shall act as President, as in the case of the death or other constitutional disability of the President.[Note 1]

The person having the greatest number of votes as Vice-President, shall be the Vice-President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed, and if no person have a majority, then from the two highest numbers on the list, the Senate shall choose the Vice-President; a quorum for the purpose shall consist of two-thirds of the whole number of Senators, and a majority of the whole number shall be necessary to a choice. But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.[1]

What will it take for the US to take China’s competition in space seriously?

Will it be Taikonauts say, “Ni hao,” from the moon?

SOURCES WHICH MAY BE RELEVANT TO OTHER DISCUSSION:

======================================================

The 4th Industrial Revolution: The robots are coming. And they’re coming for your job.

The First industrial revolution This process began in Britain in the 18th century and from there spread to other parts of the world. Although used earlier by French writers, the term Industrial Revolution was first popularized by the English economic historian Arnold Toynbee (1852–83) to describe Britain’s economic development from 1760 to 1840.Jan 20, 2016.Industrial Revolution | Britannica.com

, economist.com/node/21553017: THE first industrial revolution began in Britain in the late 18th century, with the mechanisation of the textile industry. Tasks previously done laboriously by hand in hundreds of weavers’ cottages were brought together in a single cotton mill, and the factory was born. The second industrial revolution came in the early 20th century, when Henry Ford mastered the moving assembly line and ushered in the age of mass production. The first two industrial revolutions made people richer and more urban. Now a third revolution is under way. Manufacturing is going digital. As this week’s special report argues, this could change not just business, but much else besides.

The first two industrial revolutions made people richer and more urban. Now a third revolution is under way. Manufacturing is going digital.Apr 21, 2012

Think twice, maybe three times, before cosigning loans, and even then, you probably shouldn’t do it.

History of the terms: The terms “left” and “right” appeared during the French Revolution of 1789 when members of the National Assembly divided into supporters of the king to the president’s right and supporters of the revolution to his left. One deputy, the Baron de Gauville, explained, “We began to recognize each other: those who were loyal to religion and the king took up positions to the right of the chair so as to avoid the shouts, oaths, and indecencies that enjoyed free rein in the opposing camp.” However the Right opposed the seating arrangement because they believed that deputies should support private or general interests but should not form factions or political parties. The contemporary press occasionally used the terms “left” and “right” to refer to the opposing sides.[9]

… Libertarians tend to be logical and analytical. They are confident that their principles will create an ideal society, even though they have no consensus of what that society would be like. Greens, on the other hand, tend to be more intuitive and imaginative. They have clear images of what kind of society they want, but are fuzzy about the principles on which that society would be based.

Ironically, Libertarians tend to be more utopian and uncompromising about their political positions, and are often unable to focus on politically winnable proposals to make the system more consistent with their overall goals. Greens on the other hand, embrace immediate proposals with ease, but are often unable to show how those proposals fit in to their ultimate goals.

The most difficult differences to reconcile, however, stem from baggage that members of each party have brought with them from their former political affiliations. Most Libertarians are overly hostile to government and cling to the fiction that virtually all private fortunes are legitimately earned. Most Greens are overly hostile to free enterprise and cling to the fiction that harmony and balance can be achieved through increased government intervention.

Nearly all New York State pet owners talk to their pets like they’re fellow humans, according to a recent poll. Many believe their dogs and cats can respond with barks or meows that communicate hunger, fear, or simply the need to pee. But do the animals tawk back in a Brooklyn accent? That’s the sort of thing Swedish cat lover and phonetics researcher Suzanne Schötz is working to find out. After executing this strategy on every government program except the military and corporate welfare, is it now the turn of the Supreme Court?

The term “Conservative” is so inaccurate as currently used by the Media, the Media and all of us really need to rethink their classifications and terminology.

There are Liberals/Progressives and there are Conservatives. Both of those are fine and serve a useful purpose in civil opposition to each other.

Today’s “Conservatives” are conservative in name only

__________________________________________________________________

KPFT is a 501(c)3 non-profit, and it can always use your tax-deductible support. Most of the folks who work and broadcast at KPFTare volunteers, but it still has fixed and variable expenses, and it still costs $150/hour, 24/7/365 to keep KPFT on the air.

About Thinkwing Radio

Mike Honig is originally from Brooklyn, New York. He moved to Houston in September of 1977 and has been there ever since. Mike's interests are politics, history, science, science fiction (and reading generally), technology, and almost anything else. Mike has knowledge and experience in many diverse fields, sometimes from having worked in them, and sometimes from extensive reading or discussion about them. Mike's general knowledge makes him a favorite partner in Trivial Pursuit. He likes to say that about most things, he knows enough to be dangerous. Humility is a work-in-progress.